We want Forum Feedback!

[Vhale]

You know, I'd like to see forums without moderation for a couple of days. The only thing moderated being the reported posts and topic.

 

Just as an experiment to see how far we can stray off and to see how much moderation we really need. If everything works - and by that, I mean that we remain civil, don't post spam etc. I don't see the reason for keeping moderation levels this strict.

I wouldn't because I really do think the mods do a good job here. But I also think the chat thing is too severely enforced. It's a bit ironic in relation to the whole playstyle thing. We must not interfere with people's playstyles but we must control the direction of every statement in SD. Extremes aren't good, in general.

[~!~]

I don't see why a critiquing of moderators would inevitably turn into a witch burning.

 

Look at DR. People put forth sketches or sprites, and they're critiqued in a generally civil manner. Sometimes the design isn't what the OP had in mind, sometimes it's not anatomically correct, sometimes it's confusing or unbalanced. Sometimes, an artist's work is rejected in favor of something else, and they are no longer an artist in that thread.

 

Public critiquing doesn't always turn into insult fights and hair-pulling, and I don't see why it would be any different when it comes to critiquing modding.

[Walker]

I don't see why a critiquing of moderators would inevitably turn into a witch burning.

 

Look at DR.  People put forth sketches or sprites, and they're critiqued in a generally civil manner.  Sometimes the design isn't what the OP had in mind, sometimes it's not anatomically correct, sometimes it's confusing or unbalanced.  Sometimes, an artist's work is rejected in favor of something else, and they are no longer an artist in that thread.

 

Public critiquing doesn't always turn into insult fights and hair-pulling, and I don't see why it would be any different when it comes to critiquing modding.

The different between that and this.

 

They're criting art.

 

You're suggesting criting people. We're not a bunch of pixels. You can't make our shading look better by changing the light source, and maybe we'll look better in blue instead of purple, or maybe that foot looks a little too big compared to the other, maybe shrink it down a few pixels?

 

Unlike a not-living thing, there's emotions and things driving our actions. Why should we be expected to be like art, something that's at the mercy of the artist who forms it? We shouldn't have to be faceless. Becoming faceless, becoming only what someone else wants us to be in our actions erases any personability from modding.

 

You guys told us it was the machine you wanted to work against. You wanted us to be individuals, not just mods. You don't want copy-paste messages, but honest answers? Asking us to put on a mask and get worn down by crits, as if our actions were mere tools and not tied to an individual, will only lead to more cut-and-paste answers. More machine. Not less.

[PointOfOrigin]

The different between that and this.

 

They're criting art.

 

You're suggesting criting people. We're not a bunch of pixels. You can't make our shading look better by changing the light source, and maybe we'll look better in blue instead of purple, or maybe that foot looks a little too big compared to the other, maybe shrink it down a few pixels?

 

Unlike a not-living thing, there's emotions and things driving our actions. Why should we be expected to be like art, something that's at the mercy of the artist who forms it? We shouldn't have to be faceless. Becoming faceless, becoming only what someone else wants us to be in our actions erases any personability from modding.

 

You guys told us it was the machine you wanted to work against. You wanted us to be individuals, not just mods. You don't want copy-paste messages, but honest answers? Asking us to put on a mask and get worn down by crits, as if our actions were mere tools and not tied to an individual, will only lead to more cut-and-paste answers. More machine. Not less.

Have to agree. If mods became faceless, we might as well just make a bot to do their job.

[kerrikins]

I really, really don't want to see the mods dragged through the mud, here. Modding on the IRC, I know that it can be difficult and that's a far more open and relaxed forum!

 

I do think that a more relaxed atmosphere on SD threads would be *great* for a sense of community and enjoyment here on the forums. Modding the IRC, I think there's a big big difference between 'general chatter about shimmers' and 'chat about anything' which is what the IRC deals with.

 

Of course if someone starts talking about tinsels or hollies, they're off topic and should be steered back. But surely there is something better that can be done - either a posted reminder of the topic, or private pms, or *something* - than simply shutting down the thread.

 

I admire the amount of hard work and effort that the mods put into the forum, and if these are rules they're following set by TJ, I'm fine with that. But I am going to speak up when I feel that the rules are a bit too strict or even that their interpretation is a bit too strict. I'd love to hear what TJ himself thinks about this.

[Fiona]

In my opinion, opening up "critiquing" the mods is the worst thing that could happen. One reason would be what Walker posted. These are people, not concepts or art. You don't "critque" them. All that is is criticizing which is the same as complaining, only wearing a nicer suit. It's just as destructive.

 

A second reason is this: mods have a position of authority here. Opening them up to "criticism" from the people they have authority over undermines their authority. It's rather like what would happen if suddenly the kids got to decide if their teachers are doing a good job. "Nope, Mr. Smith. You gave me a C on that paper. No good evals for you." To be honest, there are schools (mostly colleges and high schools I think) that do ask the kids what they think of the job the teachers did. The questionnaires are turned in at the end of the year after the student no longer is in that class. (and therefore no longer under that teacher's authority) And they are anonymous and the student never hears if what he said had an effect anywhere.

 

We already have a system to check mods who are an issue. It's the chain of command up to TJ.

[whitebaron]

I wouldn't because I really do think the mods do a good job here. But I also think the chat thing is too severely enforced. It's a bit ironic in relation to the whole playstyle thing. We must not interfere with people's playstyles but we must control the direction of every statement in SD. Extremes aren't good, in general.

I think mods just very often fall back on the "easy way out" - using the rules as wriiten instead of the rules as intended. The reasons for this can be various, but usually its a bading to do.

 

Rules tend to be written very complex, to hamper this. After all, if everything is written down, what can someone using rules as written do wrongly?

 

Lets take a little side trip to one of my favorite hobbies, role-playing. Ecperience shows, that the more fixed rules there are, the less people are sure on their intents, and just use them blindly, as written. Dungeons & Dragons in its various editions are a very good example on that.

 

So what needs to be done? Make the intent of the rules clearer, and try (mods) to mod toward the intent of as rule rather than the actual wording.

 

Ps: laws are always written using a most simple wording. Yes, there are many standardised phrases a non-lawyer might still interpret wrong, but everything else is just simple, short, concise.

[Walker]

And, yah, now that I think about it, I do want to say more.

 

I do realize that what I posted may reflect how you guys feel about warns. That we're trying to box you up and not make you individuals. To conform you and stuff like that. Well... that's honestly a big part of why we keep your warns private. We don't publicly demand you conform your behavior. We may ask it of you, just like MODS get asked from time to time to change their behavior too.

 

We're not trying to wear you down and make you faceless. Nor do we sit on high horses and think we're always right. We expect a certain set of behaviors from people. Courtesy and such, mainly. But a warn is not a demand, since DC is an optional place to be. We're asking, not forcing.

 

Also...

 

Story time? I feel guilty because I'm not active enough. I know I'm not active enough. And I'm in the process of doing the best I can to fix that in my own way. We are aware of our mistakes. For example:

 

1. I've forgotten from time to time to make people aware of their warn through PM.

2. Not active enough, as stated above.

3. I get angry when I see certain behaviors displayed, angry enough that I know it might intefere with my ability to reason (but I do step back in those cases and ask for another mod to take care of it).

4. I forget things a lot; sometimes I'll leave a roleplay that asked me to crit it sitting there for days on end cause I didn't remember. Or a PM.

 

In other words... we're not high and mighty. I'll sit here and admit my mistakes til the cows come home and back. I'm not ashamed to say when I've made a blunder. At least, personally, I know the value of it. Mods critique themselves internally all the time. I'm sorry if we ever come across as if we believe we're infallible, or if I ever have.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Walker

[love_HP]

Is there a way to view any page of a thread?

For example, I'd like to view page 50 of this thread, but it would need clicking for so many times to get there. In some other forums I frequent, you can put in the number 50, hit enter, and go to the page.

[Pokemonfan13]

Click on "pages" at the bottom. A popup will pop up where you can enter the page number you want. =3

[kerrikins]

Click on "pages" at the bottom. A popup will pop up where you can enter the page number you want. =3

Thank you so much!! I had no idea that even existed.

[fainewebbe]

Why not allow mods to be demodded by the members, if we don't think they're doing their job properly?

 

I've been on a lot of forums in my time and I have never seen one where members can de-mod the moderators. That would just lead to all kinds of ugly. This is a place provided to us by the site owner to gather and talk about DC and non-DC things. The mods are regular people who put in a lot of their time and deal with a lot of nastiness to make it run as smoothly as they can within the parameters of what the site owner gives them. There has been a lot of backlash against mods in the past few months, and giving members carte blanche on whom they want stripped of their powers would degrade into a nasty popularity contest.

 

I don't see why a critiquing of moderators would inevitably turn into a witch burning.

 

But that's exactly what it would turn into, and there have been more than enough examples posted here to see why. The fact that mods here are accessible and approachable and actually ask for and listen to feedback is more than I see in most forums.

 

The only thing I would like to see is a list of rules that defines exactly what chat is and what spam is so that members know what to avoid as that seems to be the biggest complaint.

[love_HP]

I totally agree that we need a very clear rule.

 

*Story time, you can skip it*

I go to another forum, let's call it forum A, where chatting is not so seriously frowned upon, but chat threads without a topic relevant to the theme of the forum will be deleted . (That forum has no closing thread function, though I don't know why.)

There wasn't a very clear list of rules about HOW chatty a thread needs to be to get deleted, just some broad(not board) rules.

Drama focusing on mods happen in that forum weekly, even DAILY. People get their threads or posts deleted, and start new threads like,"WHICH MOD DELETED MY THREAD! I'LL HAVE A WORD WITH HIM!" and starts drama. Then they may get banned from posting for a few days.

In forum B, the rules are more strict, threads without the OP having something to discuss will be deleted. But the mods do it much more clearly, even I, as a non-mod, see a thread and think "this may get deleted." and 90% of the times they do.

While in forum A, people are not clear about WHAT will be deleted, making some reluctant to post new threads or even post at all in the forum, and say in a sarcastic way, whenever someone has something to say about a deleted post, things like "you'll not get into trouble if you don't start a thread" (which makes little sense to me - isn't the FUNCTION of a forum to discuss? What's the point of going to a forum if no new threads are started at all?) While some others give up trying to follow the rule (just as what we see in some DC users) and even try to start drama all the time.

That is NOT what a healthy forum should be like, and I wouldn't want DC forum to go the way of forum A.

 

 

And I agree the ideas that there should be two kinds of "warnings", one called "mod reminder" for minor things like a little diverging of topic, and one "warning" for serious things like being very rude to others, spamming intentionally in more than one topic, etc.

The term "warning" is a bit too...much, it seems.

 

Edit for typo.

Edited March 23, 2013 by love_HP

[HeatherMarie]

Oh look I went to bed and came back.

 

The issue is neither "mods are doing their jobs right" or "mods are doing their jobs wrong". It's that the mods are interpreting the rules as literals and absolutes and using overly narrow guidelines for what is and isn't considered rulebreaking, due to lack of definitions of terms.

 

Forum rule 1: "Respect Others", but does not say anything about what is considered disrespect. So one oversensitive person goes around reporting everyone who disagrees with them because they think all disagreement is rude. Which it's not, but they're ~*offended*~ so it MUST be considered disrespectful because harassment is impact not intent.

 

Forum rule #2: "No Spam", but there is zero definition as to what is spam or not. So the slightest deviation from the topic of a thread OP is being warned as "spam" even though much of the time it's the natural course of a conversation.

 

Forum rule #5: "Use Constructive Criticism", is stretched and abused so many ways, often going as far as justifying harassment of the person giving crit and then they get warned for rule #1 even if it was worded as neutrally as possible.

 

See what I'm getting at here?

THIS, SOOOO MUCH THIS.

 

I'm the last one to want to bash on mods because I really, really respect the mods around here. The mods aren't the problem.

 

The rules, lack of definitions, and plain STRICTNESS of the rules, those are the problems.

 

I've said it before in this thread, I've been active in threads where a mod posts a "stay on topic!" warning, and yet I NEVER SAW any post at all that I would consider off-topic to the original issue. We need *clear* definitions of *what* we are doing that is off-topic, and *where* those boundaries are. In a lot of Suggestion threads, especially having to do with an idea about AP-blockage, the OP will post their original idea, but then eventually people will start talking about why that isn't the best option, and what other options might be better. THAT apparently isn't "off-topic" since it's done so often without mod-interference, even though the thread might end up mostly discussing *better* ways to deal with it. So.... where's the line? If that's no off-topic, then why are SO MANY of the new-release posts considered so?

 

I'm starting to despair about ever getting any actual action when it comes to this issue, because the strictness and ambiguity of the rules have been brought up many, many times and.... Nothing. Which, really makes this entire forum less appealing, if so many users asking for something as simple as rule-clarification gets ignored.

[Lythiaren]

Yeah the whole "Reminder to stay on topic you guys!" thing seems odd because a lot of the times I've seen that happen, I haven't seen anything I'd personally consider off-topic. Then again I don't frequent SD very often. But from reading people in here talk about what's going on, it looks (from my admittedly remote vantage point) a lot like "This forum is about discussing a GAME how dare you have fun?!?" which doesn't make much sense to me.

 

But yeah a lot of the problem stems from ambiguity in the rules. Rules 3, 4, and 6 are pretty cut and dry, but the big ones (1, 2, 5) generating the most warnings are so vague. There are no specific criteria posted where they're most needed. Unless the modding guidelines are so restrictive that it mods are basically being told to make everyone into robots, it often feels like some of them are trying to err on the side of safety. Rule 7 is unenforceable so I don't even know why it's even a rule. I've never heard of anyone getting warned for not reading a sticky, on any forum ever. The way the mods are currently modding does fit the rules, but at the same time it is an extremely narrow subset within what many people would interpret as being allowed, and that's why it feels so excessive and rattly.

 

And I still want to see the mod hierarchy posted somewhere public. We keep being told to go up the ladder but from where I'm standing as a user, I don't see one. When I see people going "if you don't like mod x go up the chain of command" my automatic response is "what chain of command?". From where I'm standing I see TJ sitting on top of a flat platform made of mods. That's a very short chain of command; it amounts to "talk to the boss if you don't like it" and I can't for the life of me see why people would say "go up the chain" if it's faster to type "talk to TJ".

Edited March 23, 2013 by Lythiaren

[cfmtfm]

Going to go ahead and throw in a worthless penny to this discussion. Chances are I'll swap my opinion around a lot of times.

Also I don't want to start an argument or anything because I'll probably just be lurking all the time around here and yeah.

 

You know, I'd like to see forums without moderation for a couple of days. The only thing moderated being the reported posts and topic.

 

Just as an experiment to see how far we can stray off and to see how much moderation we really need. If everything works - and by that, I mean that we remain civil, don't post spam etc. I don't see the reason for keeping moderation levels this strict.

I have to disagree here, with a blunt no. Even if we were given notice, I wouldn't want it. Because I know it's not going to 'work'.

 

I see things that are reportable every day. Sometimes it's more of the 'remain civil'/'respect others' sort of thing and it might just be my emotions or personal feelings towards how it was worded or whoever the person was. Sometimes it's spam (posting view links, the odd post that doesn't 'contribute to the discussion'). But they're all reportable in my point of view.

 

I do see the reason for the rules being this strict. Yes, the mods probably have different interpretations of rules and their own strictness levels and this can affect us and our warns. Yes, the strictness levels could be lowered and relaxed a little. But no, I don't want to have this experiment - even if it were for a couple of days or with advanced notice. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm just saying that I'm 80-90% sure that we're not going to be as 'civilised' as 'predicted' before this experiment.

 

--

 

As for the IRC, I might suggest having a 'dragon discussion' chatroom or something like that. Just for site-related discussion (or stuff in particular, like the Shimmer-scale discussions). Although I'm not sure if this is actually possible or if the mods would approve of it or something like that.

[Fuzzbucket]

I've been on a lot of forums in my time and I have never seen one where members can de-mod the moderators. That would just lead to all kinds of ugly. This is a place provided to us by the site owner to gather and talk about DC and non-DC things. The mods are regular people who put in a lot of their time and deal with a lot of nastiness to make it run as smoothly as they can within the parameters of what the site owner gives them. There has been a lot of backlash against mods in the past few months, and giving members carte blanche on whom they want stripped of their powers would degrade into a nasty popularity contest.

I don't see why a critiquing of moderators would inevitably turn into a witch burning.

 

But that's exactly what it would turn into, and there have been more than enough examples posted here to see why. The fact that mods here are accessible and approachable and actually ask for and listen to feedback is more than I see in most forums.

Absolutely. One forum I am on, you MAY NOT DISCUSS mod actions in threads. Not at all. The posts will get deleted - no discussion about that, not one iota - and you WILL get a warning - and if you keep doing it - a suspension or even a ban.

 

I have to say that while there are sometimes some odd bits of modding, you CAN contact the mods, and they WILL explain - but you will NEVER see it all in threads. In actual fact, I am beginning to think this might be better here.

 

Chain of command - I thought it was try another mod > try a global > try TJ. That's even in this thread somewhere, isn't it ? That's the same chain as on every forum I'm on.

[Tawanda001]

As for the IRC, I might suggest having a 'dragon discussion' chatroom or something like that. Just for site-related discussion (or stuff in particular, like the Shimmer-scale discussions). Although I'm not sure if this is actually possible or if the mods would approve of it or something like that.

That's one idea, but it doesn't help those of us who would simply like a place to discuss such things on the forum.

IRC moves too fast for someone like me who types at a snails pace, and I believe someone pointed out it's very difficult to be a part of things with people who aren't in the same time zone when you are on.

There needs to be a forum alternative too.

 

Clarifying the rules would help, but I don't think that is the only thing that needs to be done. I think we need to readjust some of the rules and loosen up a little bit.

 

The shimmer breeding thread was pretty simple as far as understanding what was and wasn't allowed, people understood the rules. The problem was that the topic was so narrow, and the rules about chatting are so unnecessarily strict, that it was nearly impossible to keep to.

It's also boring to only be able to talk about one single aspect when there are so many other things about shimmers that could be discussed.

Why does that topic need to be split and taken to a dozen different threads to discuss each separate aspect, when the people in the thread seemed quite happy to discuss anything and everything about them in that one thread?

 

I can see why informational type threads might need such strict modding. If you have a question, or might need to know something, it's beneficial to not have to wade through pages of chatter to find it.

But discussion type threads don't really need moderation past the point of keeping things civil and maybe a reminder to get back on topic if things seem to be veering too far off course.

Of course I also think the OP should be the one to decide what they want the topic to cover too. I was a little amazed when the original prize dragon topic was closed and then reopened as a different topic by a mod. Other forums I'm on only close a thread for being off topic if it veers completely away from the original topic, or at the request of the OP if they feel things aren't going in the direction they wanted.

 

I just feel like there needs to be a little more leeway when it comes to these types of threads, and also in the news threads.

 

[Lythiaren]

I have to say that while there are sometimes some odd bits of modding, you CAN contact the mods, and they WILL explain - but you will NEVER see it all in threads. In actual fact, I am beginning to think this might be better here.

 

Chain of command - I thought it was try another mod > try a global > try TJ. That's even in this thread somewhere, isn't it ? That's the same chain as on every forum I'm on.

Found the chain of command after frustrated digging. Turns out I've just never scrolled far enough down the main page to see the link in the past 5ish years. /facepalm

 

Buuuuut.

 

When told to go up a chain of command anywhere, I've always been told to go to the person's superiors and then their superiors and then their superiors. I've never, ever been told to go to their peers. This coming from military-based experience as well as work and school. I was never approached with a complaint about one of my fellow Warrants because such an action was unheard of; sergeants and corporals I heard all about because of my rank (and part of my job was to filter those people out of the promotions process anyway), but complaints about myself and my peers could only be voiced to the chief himself. Complaints about him could only go up to the officers. And for good reason, too. I had no power to discipline my own peers and so complaining about one of them to me would be a fruitless endeavour.

 

That said my personal grievances can basically only be voiced with TJ, it seems; all but two of the warns in my history list have been exclusively from the two globals. I'm obviously not going to say if the one I keep parading around is under that category or if it's one of the exceptions.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Fuzzbucket]

Found the chain of command after frustrated digging. Turns out I've just never scrolled far enough down the main page to see the link in the past 5ish years. /facepalm

 

Buuuuut.

 

When told to go up a chain of command anywhere, I've always been told to go to the person's superiors and then their superiors and then their superiors. I've never, ever been told to go to their peers. This coming from military-based experience as well as work and school. I was never approached with a complaint about one of my fellow Warrants because such an action was unheard of; sergeants and corporals I heard all about because of my rank (and part of my job was to filter those people out of the promotions process anyway), but complaints about myself and my peers could only be voiced to the chief himself. Complaints about him could only go up to the officers. And for good reason, too. I had no power to discipline my own peers and so complaining about one of them to me would be a fruitless endeavour.

 

That said my personal grievances can basically only be voiced with TJ, it seems; all but two of the warns in my history list have been exclusively from the two globals. I'm obviously not going to say if the one I keep parading around is under that category or if it's one of the exceptions.

WELL - when you have such a small organisation (as the mods, in effect - are) - there's not that much scope for zillions of levels.

 

I have NO idea of your warn/sinful history - but if you get nowhere with TJ, I don't know what else to suggest... Even so, having a sort of witchhunt in threads does NOT appeal. I gather that before I got here there was one against some particular mod, and it was vile. Let's NOT do that ?

 

Any mileage in talking to a mod to some time that you are NOT carrying a load on % points, to see if that could help ?

 

OMG I am no longer at 10%. I am a NANGEL

[Lythiaren]

Indeed, but there's not much point in going to, say, a blue mod if you had a problem with an orange mod or something because if they're peers, they ultimately have no organizational weight beyond just being a second opinion. Basically, PMing a peer of a mod with which I have a problem just feels like talking into the wind.

 

I never commented on the users-demodding-mods idea though.

 

Though I guess let it be stated for the record that I think allowing users to boot mods by popular vote is a terrible idea. I heard [x] likes puppies more than kittens, let's all gangvote them out of the mod team!!!!1!!oneone

Edited March 23, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Fuzzbucket]

Indeed, but there's not much point in going to, say, a blue mod if you had a problem with an orange mod or something because if they're peers, they ultimately have no organizational weight beyond just being a second opinion. Basically, PMing a peer of a mod with which I have a problem just feels like talking into the wind.

 

I never commented on the users-demodding-mods idea though.

 

Though I guess let it be stated for the record that I think allowing users to boot mods by popular vote is a terrible idea. I heard [x] likes puppies more than kittens, let's all gangvote them out of the mod team!!!!1!!oneone

Exactly ! Or even x mod warned my mate; let's get them booted out; vote NAOW !

 

PMing a peer could mean (certainly does on the other forum I mentioned !) mean that mods discuss issues among themselves. While it might not sort your IMMEDIATE issue, it might make a difference next time (see under Socky and sarcasm - MANY apologetic posts from her for being OTT !)

[Lythiaren]

Yeah I'm glad Socky was willing to say what she did in here last month. She also spoke up about +1 posts, I think?

 

Alas, the problem with PMing a mod's peers to get discussion going is that as a user, I can't tell if such a discussion is even taking place. And if it doesn't always help with an immediate concern, why send the complaint in the first place? Disputing a mod's actions kind of implies that you want a noticeable difference to be made in whatever issue you report.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Nectaris]

As for the IRC, I might suggest having a 'dragon discussion' chatroom or something like that. Just for site-related discussion (or stuff in particular, like the Shimmer-scale discussions). Although I'm not sure if this is actually possible or if the mods would approve of it or something like that.

 

IRC is not the solution, many do not want to go there or can't(parent's rules). As I have said, NO WHERE ELSE on the forum are the rules interpreted so strictly. I rarely see the mods warning for offtopicness in other parts of the forum, even when they do stray a little. In SD and the news, you start to deviate just a smidge and a mod is going to jump on you. I don't see why they couldn't treat these two sections like the rest of the forum and allow SOME deviation when it comes to conversations. As it stands, I avoid those two sections like the plague, because guess what? IT ISN'T FUN TO POST IN SECTIONS SO STRICT.

[RainDear]

For as long as I have been here TJ has been against chat in the forum. I could be wrong, but I believe that the venting thread fiasco only cemented that attitude. There have been many, many suggestions asking for a chat thread or a looser place on the forums, and TJ's answer was to create the IRC. I know that many don't choose to use the IRC. I am one of them. I am also someone who always argues in favor of looser rules or the allowance of some chatter. It's just that I have been aware of TJ's attitude about this subject for so long that it makes me believe that it is TJ's desires that are controlling the mods' behavior in this department and not the mods abusing their modly powers. I would never be a mod here. If you toe TJ's line, the members hate you, if you try to show any leniency, TJ is down your neck. There is no way of winning for the mods.

 

Lyth, I think if I had a problem understanding a mod's actions with me, I would first go to a mod I like and respect by pm and ask if they could clarify the issue for me. If that didn't help, I would go to a global mod and ask for assistance. Then, as a last resort I might approach TJ, or depending on my attitude or the situation, I might just let it drop and forget about it rather than going to TJ, because he so seldom actually responds to members. The reason I would go to another mod, is not to have them "do" anything about it, but to have them try to help me to understand the issue.